Eschatology Views

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Tom Bryant, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am preaching in a few weeks about Eschatology. I am pre-trib, pre-mill, but want to be honest about the positions of others. So I need the help of those who view it differently.

    Would you describe what your view of future events in a basic, short and concise manner. I really am not looking to debate the positions but to be able to honestly state what they believe when I talk about to our church. Also, in the message I won't be attacking your positions, just telling what they are and telling our people what I believe the Bible to teach.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am personally Amillenialist. Strangely the term Amillenial from the greek means no millenium however a more accurate way to describe it is that we are currently in the millenium. That Rev 20:4 is speaking to the current state rather than just a future one. Therefore I believe that the Kingdom of God is founded by Christ is operative in history and is to be revealed in its fulness in the life to come.
    Mt 12:28 Lk 17:20-21 Mt 7:21-23 and 8:11-12 Rom 14:17 1 Cor 4:19-20 Col 13-14 1 Cor 6:9 Gal 5:21 Eph 5:5 2 Tim 4:18
    I believe we are in the last days now - Acts 2:16-17 1 Cor 10:11 1jn 2:18 Jn. 6:39-40, 44,54; 11:24; 12:48
    I believe the return of Christ will be a single event
    That the resurrection will be a general one of both believers and unbelievers
    There will be judgement on both
    at which point the believer will be transformed and glorified 1 Corinthians 15:51-52
    The non believers will be judged to their damnation

    Thats the pretty quick synopisis of it.
     
  3. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thinkingstuff,

    Count me in.

    Myself was used to believed in pretrib and premill before. Now, I am amill, because I can easy see one future coming, since we are now in the last days.

    Matt. 25:31-46 is probably the mostly clearest passage teaching us that there will be one future coming, one judgment day. This passage doesn't say anything about future 1000 years beyond Second Advent. That why, I rather stick with God's Word than what men saying.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  4. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those were clear and concise. Thanks.

    any others?
     
  5. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Don't forget the post-millennial view. (Apologies I'm not replying with any resources available.) This was the predominate view of evangelicals and Protestants during the first fifteen years of last century. Extremely important. Essentially it is the idea that as we live in the millennium how we make the world better helps usher in the eschaton. Pretty interesting view.

    Since I'm a historical premillennialist I would make a brief case for it. This view suggests a literal return of Christ at the Second Coming but dismisses the idea of a pretribulational rapture. As I believe, I also dismiss the idea of a literal 7 year tribulation which many historical premills do as well. The idea here is in reading the NT passages about eschatology there is only 1 return of Christ, not a half then a whole. (Not being smarmy just honest.) :)

    Also, preterism is extremely important. The views of the interpretation of Revelation will also be a significant thing. There are partial preterists and full preterists. The Wikipedia article is a good starting place. (Please note, I said good starting place and not final authority to all the research snobs...;)...like me) Preterism relies heavily on an earlier dating of Revelation and suggests all, or most, of the details about eschatology in the NT have already been accomplished.

    The idealist interpretation, the futurist interpretation, and the preterist interpretation are all important here. How you read Revelation often tends to speak to how you understand eschatology.

    If you are interested google books has plenty of texts on this that you can read most of them for free. Just go there and type in Revelation or eschatology and you'll be gold. I personally have enjoyed the Four Views book Revelation and the one on the millennial reign.

    Hope it helps.
     
  6. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,888
    Likes Received:
    112
    I do not see the distinction between Israel and the Church, which it would take to make Dispensationalism, and thereby Premil, Pretrib work.


    Some of the reasoning I posted here in debate quite a while back:

    I would submit that “Israel” refers to the faithful. I would further suggest that the idea of the “Jew” in the NT and OT be abandoned because it is only applicable to (lets see if I got this right) “the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin (with the Levites), it excludes all the prophets to the northern kingdom such as Samuel, Elijah, and so on.”

    Back to the better term “Israel” which I contend means “faithful” throughout history as the secular ethnic application is different than the redemptive context in scripture. John the Baptist rebuffed the Pharisees in this matter as to who their father was:

    (Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

    (Mat 3:10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    Israel refers to faithful believers only, Jew and Gentile alike in one body in Christ. (Gal 3:28-29) Further, how can all of Israel be saved? (Rom 11:26) How do dispensationalists hold to that truth? And how many of the Jews of the tribulation will be saved???

    I think you would agree that all were saved by faith both in the NT and the OT. What makes the (only) difference is the ministry that is written in our hearts; God required essentially the same thing through faith: (Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

    The OC - ministry of death, the NC- ministry of life, same salvation-main difference is here is the OT saints didn’t know the name of their redeemer. Seems dispys will argue OT saints didn’t have the indwelling of the HS…guess that’s another subject.

    Israel (the faithful) IS the church. The word “Jews” would not even extend to the saints from creation. The “seed of Abraham” was Paul’s term for ALL the saved and that term is consistent and applies from the OT also and is unrelated to the New and Old covenants.


    #2

    The term “Israel” unless referring to it in the meaning of a pedigreed “Jew” has no relationship to the meaning of the “seed of Abraham” as I contend Israel in this reference refers to a believer with faith, both NC and OC.

    The “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved:

    (Gal 3:16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    (Gal 3:17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

    (Gal 3:18) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

    (Gal 3:19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

    (Gal 3:20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

    (Gal 3:21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    (Gal 3:22) But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    (Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

    (Gal 3:24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

    (Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

    (Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

    (Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    (Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    (Gal 3:29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


    The terminology (seed of Abraham) is consistent in the meaning both NC and OC:

    (Psa 105:6) O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.


    Note John the Baptist’s reply to the Pharisees who thought differently:

    (Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

    The term “Israel” can not be separated in the meaning of “seed of Abraham” ALL the saved by faith, to mean only the OT people. It is unrelated to the meaning of being “Jew” in the sense of faith salvation.

    The "seeds of Abraham" are brought together in the promise:

    (Rom 11:16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

    (Rom 11:17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

    (Rom 11:18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

    (Rom 11:19) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

    (Rom 11:20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

    (Rom 11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

    (Rom 11:22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

    (Rom 11:23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

    (Rom 11:24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

    (Rom 11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

    (Rom 11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    (Rom 11:27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


    In relationship to salvation meaning by faith alone there is no fundamental difference between the NT and the OT; the fundamental difference between the New Covenant and the Old is it is written in our hearts.

    (Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    (Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?


    #3

    Hope this is more clear of what I submitted as a reason why there is no consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, but contrary wise Israel is the church.

    Israel used in the definition of a pedigreed Jew can be shown in scripture to be unrelated to the covenants in both the OT and the NT.

    In the Bible God gave the name Israel to Jacob for a specific purpose and the significance of the meaning of that name cannot be overlooked. The name is evidence of a line of “faith” already established in Abraham not of a father to son relationship of “pedigree”.

    (Heb 11:9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

    These guys were fellow heirs of the promise with Abraham by faith, not of blood. It seems more than significant that the promise was NOT that Abraham was to be the father of a bloodline but of a nation.

    The “seeds of Abraham” are what I spelled out in the preceding posts of whom Paul said they applied to in the NT (ALL the saved), who John the Baptist said they didn’t apply to (BLOOD), and a look into the Word as to who was included in the “seeds of Abraham”.


     
  7. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,196
    Likes Received:
    374
    I have a pretty simple view: Jesus is coming back at just the right time and I'm ready for it but prepared for it to not happen in my lifetime. That's about all that concerns me. :)
     
  8. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't really looking for the verses, just the general overview of the positions.

    I hate when my own position gets misrepresented and don't want to do that myself to anothers.
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly myself would not be asking people here their views to teach others since I am not convinced people here best understand their own view. If it were me in your place (and it wouldn't be since I am not nor want to be a preacher, esp. as a woman!), I would consult some books such as:

    [FONT=&quot]Four Views on the Book of Revelation [/FONT]by C. Marvin Pate, Stanley N. Gundry, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., and Sam Hamstra Jr.
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views by George Eldon Ladd, Robert G. Clouse, and Anthony A. Hoekema
    [FONT=&quot]
    Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond [/FONT]
    by Stanley N. Gundry, Darrell L. Bock, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., and Robert B. Strimple
    [FONT=&quot]
    Three Views on the Rapture [/FONT]
    by Gleason L. Archer Jr., Stanley N. Gundry, Paul D. Feinberg, and Douglas J. Moo
     
  10. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thinkingstuff said it.
    I would say, right now, basically I differ from that I do not believe the elect will be judged since he has already been judged in Christ, and his works in Christ are being judged and rewarded right now in this time life, but that the non-elect will all be judged before the Great White Throne along with Satan and his minions.
     
  11. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    I am a preterist. Biblical Eschatology is not about the end of the Church Age or the end of the Wolrd but the end of God's dealings with Old Covenant Israel.

    The last days present in the New Testament (Hebrews 1:1-2 etc....) were speaking of the last days of Old Covenant Israel (see Gen. 49:1). What you see in the NT is the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, one was passing one was coming to consumation(Heb.8:13). Present age vs. age to come.

    Paul taught nothing but what was in the Law and Prophets(Acts 23:28). Paul taught the Hope of Israel(Acts 28:20). All eschotology is Israel's eschatology. The Church is the fulfillment of those promises.

    Honor the time-statements of the New Testament and realize the NT eschatology finds its foundation in the Old Testament. You cannot interpret the New Heavens and New Earth of I Peter 3 and Revelation 21 without first going back to its foundational text in Is. 65-66 etc...... Paul and Jesus and all the NT writers got their eschatology from the OT.

    Honor time-statments and don't insert gaps when none are there.
     
    #11 Grasshopper, Mar 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2010
  12. Eagle

    Eagle
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you are asking seems reasonable, and thoughtful, however, how to be concise?
    1) I am Post-Trib, Post-Mil.
    2) Most any Post-Mil "position" set forth in any book about what I believe (especially as a comparison) is for the express purpose of promoting the "superiority" of another given position, not well thought thru, and not well represented.
    3) You are about to do the same, tho you would like to "fairly" represent my position.
    4) Eschatology is so broad & encompassing that you supposedly did not come to a full(?) understanding of it until much study, etc.
    5) Not possible for you to "fairly" represent my position -- which I of course to be very Biblically sound -- without similar time, serious study, etc., as you have put into yours.

    But, here is a starter, if you are actually interested in fairly representing my different-from-yours position.

    Acts 2, Peter's sermon on Pentecost, the whole reason and purpose of the sermon is to ram home a singular, most significant truth, the culmination of which is this:

    Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

    Both Lord & Christ (also termed, Anointed One, Messiah, Seed of David). This makes him the promised heir to David's throne (Davidic Covenant).

    Act 2:29-35 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
    For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

    The Heir to David's throne, (according to both David and Peter's testimony here) sitting on His throne, at the right hand of the Father, His work finished, but for how long..."Until I make thy foes thy footstool."

    Now here is the end of the world:

    1Co 15:24-27 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

    I highlight v. 26, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." This is when Christ's reign (for Eschatological purposes) is concluded, per Acts 2, and many other places.

    Many (myself included) also refer to this occasion as The Rapture.

    Therefore, as God, thru Peter, David, etc., said, Christ reigns, on His throne, at the right hand of the Father, until the end, briefly preceded by the Rapture.

    ANY and ALL events in human annals MUST therefore occur PRIOR to this time.

    This all perfectly coincides with Jesus direct answer, to the direct question, posed by His Disciples in Matthew 24:3:

    "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

    To which Jesus replied (Matthew 24:29-31):

    "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

    You may print this, if you like, for a concise, good(?) start at fairly representing a (not everyone's) Post-Trib, Post-Mil, perspective.

    Hope this is not overwhelming, best to you.
     
  13. olegig

    olegig
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you preach-teach the folks about salvation do you also give them the catholic view, the jw view, the c of c view?
    I bet not. I bet you give them only the view you see supported by scripture.
    My advice is to do the same in this regard.
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Concerning future events, I'm pan-mil. It's all gonna pan out the way it's supposed to. I agree very much with Ann:

    There's my basic, short and concise answer concerning future events. :)

    ...and I might add:

    “Only fools and madmen are positive in their interpretations of the apocalypse.” C.H. Spurgeon

    ......and:

    “ Experience teaches that the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is exceedingly precarious. There is every reason to believe that the predictions concerning the second advent of Christ, and the events that are to attend and follow it, will disappoint the expectations of commentators, as the expectations of the Jews were disappointed in the manner in which the prophecies concerning the first advent were accomplished.” Charles Hodge
     
  15. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you kindly explain to this simple mind the reason why you posted this?
     
  16. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the advice, but I am gratefully rejecting it.

    Actually, when we are doing a theological study of salvation, I do tell them what others believe. You may not believe it but most Christians are mature enough to see that there are differences and want to know when they witness to any of these groups what their meaning of words are and what a Biblical meaning of words are.

    I also disagree with your assumption that differing eschatological views are like different view of how one receives eternal life. The C of C view that baptism is involved in salvation is heretical because it is works based. BUT the A-Millenial view is not heretical. I may and do believe that it is not what the Bible teaches, but it is not heretical.
     
  17. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Brother Tom, I wish to point out that the thread subject, 'Eschatology Views', and the request in the OP, “....your view of future events...”, while related, are not the quite one and the same topic to many. :)
     
    #17 kyredneck, Mar 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 18, 2010
  18. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    that's true... Lunch is in my future, but not in my eschatology... :tongue3:
     
  19. olegig

    olegig
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are more passages in the Bible dealing with the Second Coming than any other topic.
    IMO God has only one plan and I feel it is important to discern what this one plan might be.

    There have been more Baptist churches split over eschatological views than over salvation views.
    Just trying to keep the moving van "wolf" from your door.
     
  20. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the warning...

    My experience has been quite the opposite. Maybe that's because we inform our people.
     

Share This Page

Loading...